IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF CHAN CHEN ALIAS ANTONIO CHAN TO BE ADMITTED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. CHAN CHEN ALIAS ANTONIO CHAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF…

Chan Chen versus Republic

The Case

This is the story of a Chinese citizen who asked the courts of the Philippines to make him a Filipino, and of the Government that stood up to say he had not earned it. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu granting the application for naturalization of Chan Chen, also known as Antonio Chan. The case matters because it gathers into one decision the three tests every naturalization applicant must pass: the statutory period of residence that his character witnesses must have known him for, the requirement of a proper and irreproachable conduct, and the sincerity of his desire to become a Filipino. It is a favorite of examiners because the Court states the rule of strict construction in language you can quote.

Procedural History

Chan Chen filed his application for citizenship on February 18, 1956 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Attached to the petition were the affidavits of two character witnesses, Ramiro P. Atilo and Cesar Las Pinas. After the petition was heard, with the applicant and his witnesses taking the stand, one Damaso del Rosario, a resident of Cebu City, filed a written opposition, alleging that the applicant had been made respondent in several labor cases for collection of separation and overtime pay and for underpayment before the Department of Labor, and also in cases for estafa and violation of the Blue Sunday Law, all pending before the fiscal's office of Cebu City.

On June 1, 1957, the lower court, finding that the applicant had all the qualifications necessary for naturalization and none of the disqualifications provided by law, rendered a decision granting the application. The Provincial Fiscal of Cebu moved for a new trial or reopening of the case on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the petitioner possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications. The motion was granted, but after receiving evidence the lower court, on November 4, 1957, reiterated its decision granting the application. The Government then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Facts

Chan Chen, a Chinese citizen who alleged that he was a resident of Cebu City, applied for naturalization in February 1956. His first character witness, Ramiro P. Atilo, stated in his affidavit, and affirmed on the stand, that he had known the petitioner only since 1947. That was barely nine years before the filing of the application, short of the ten years of residence required in this case. His second witness, Cesar Las Pinas, said he had known the petitioner since 1940 in Cebu City, but admitted that he was a certified public accountant and that the petitioner was his retainer client.

It also appeared that the petitioner had been found guilty of violating labor laws on the payment of wages to his employees and was sentenced to pay the corresponding money claim. The decision was rendered ex parte, but this was due to the petitioner's own fault, because he did not appear at the hearing despite summons served on him. While the naturalization case was pending below, he voluntarily settled the money claim, although for less than the amount adjudicated. The complaint's withdrawal of his written opposition followed.

Finally, in the course of his testimony, the petitioner positively declared that he was not willing to embrace Philippine citizenship if he would not be allowed to acquire real estate property, that his interest was to acquire real property, and that, being in business, his main purpose was to stand on equal footing with Filipinos also engaged in business.

Issues

• Whether or not one of the two character witnesses failed to satisfy the statutory requirement as to the period of time he had known the petitioner as a resident.
• Whether or not the petitioner conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines.
• Whether or not the petitioner possesses sincerity in his desire to become a naturalized Filipino citizen.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Commonwealth Act Number 473, as amended, provides:

A petition for naturalization must be supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by the Act.

This is the provision on which the first issue turns, because a witness who has known the applicant for less than the required period cannot support the petition, and the defect goes to the very filing of the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found merit in the contention of the Solicitor General. The affidavit of Ramiro P. Atilo, affirmed in his direct testimony, showed that he came to know the petitioner only in 1947, or barely nine years before February 18, 1956, when the application was filed. The statutory period of residence required in this case is ten years. Such failure renders the petition defective from the very beginning, and the lower court should not have entertained it at all. The Court recalled its consistent doctrine that where the affidavit of a witness attached to the application states that the affiant had known the applicant for less than the period required prior to the filing, the petition is fatally defective.

On the second witness, the Court noted that Cesar Las Pinas, while declaring that he had known the petitioner since 1940, admitted that he was a certified public accountant and that the petitioner was his retainer client. Considering that the question of a witness's qualification in a naturalization proceeding is a matter of more than usual importance, since the witnesses are in a way insurers of the character of the candidate concerned, the Court was not prepared to say that this witness possessed the qualifications necessary to satisfy the requirements of the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that the petitioner had not conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner. He had been found guilty of violating labor laws on the payment of wages and sentenced to pay the money claim. The decision was ex parte, but through his own fault, since he did not appear despite summons. His belated settlement of the claim while the case was pending, for less than the amount adjudicated, did not speak well of him; it was not improbable that the payment was but an eleventh hour compliance to facilitate the grant of the application.

On the third issue, the Court held that the petitioner's sincerity was in serious doubt. He himself declared that he was not willing to embrace Philippine citizenship if he would not be allowed to acquire real estate property, that his interest was to acquire real property, and that his main purpose was to stand on equal footing with Filipinos in business. Having, by his own admission, mercenary motives, and considering that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant, the trial court erred in granting the petition.

Doctrine

First, the petition for naturalization must be supported by the affidavits of at least two credible persons who personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by the Act. A witness who has known the applicant for less than that period renders the petition fatally defective from the very beginning, and the court should not entertain it at all.

Second, the character witnesses must be truly credible and disinterested. A witness who is the applicant's retainer client does not satisfy the requirement, because the witnesses are in a way insurers of the character of the candidate concerned.

Third, the applicant must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence. A labor judgment for unpaid wages, an ex parte decision due to his own failure to appear, and a belated settlement for less than the amount adjudicated all betray a character that does not speak well of him.

Fourth, the applicant must have a sincere desire to become a Filipino. An applicant who admits that his interest is to acquire real property and to stand on equal footing with Filipinos in business has mercenary motives, and his sincerity is in serious doubt. Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and denied the petition for naturalization, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced and strictly construed in favor of the government and against the applicant, and that a character witness who has known the applicant for less than the statutory period makes the petition fatally defective from the very beginning. Examiners use this case to test the qualifications for naturalization, especially the required affidavits of two credible witnesses, proper and irreproachable conduct, and sincere desire, and to remind you that the burden lies heavily on the applicant.